Okay, I am not new to D&D--I've been playing for 34 years and played every edition--and I've never been confused by a class until now. Note: I understand the artificer was present in either 3rd or 4th edition as well, but I only ran 3rd for about three years and didn't buy many supplements, and I only played 4th once and hated the edition. Anyway, my first exposure to the artificer was via Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. The core concept behind this class just confuses me. So let me explain what I'm confused about and maybe the community can help me out here. I keep thinking there must be something I'm not seeing or understanding correctly.
The core mechanic surrounding this class's spellcasting is what confuses me. So the RAW (rules as written) are.
As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you’re using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. When you cast poison spray, you could fling foul chemicals or use a wand that spits venom. The effect of the spell is the same as for a spellcaster of any other class, but your method of spellcasting is special.
Okay, so let's go with the above example for a moment: As a DM, I can't justify anyone whipping up a salve in the middle of battle, or even while resting, in a matter of six seconds (or 1 action), as would be the case with cure wounds. This just doesn't make any sense. And before someone says "It's a game; it doesn't have to make sense," I have to point out that if that argument was accurate then we wouldn't need rules to play the game. Yes it's a game, but it does need guidelines in order to give us structure and consistency, thus everyone knows what they can and can't do.
And then we have this little piece from the class description:
The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with heat metal, you might be altering the device you use to heal—perhaps modifying a tool so that it channels heat instead of healing energy.
Such details don’t limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit beyond the spell’s effects. You don’t have to justify how you’re using tools to cast a spell. But describing your spellcasting creatively is a fun way to distinguish yourself from other spellcasters.
If I'm essentially tinkering with tools and items to create effects as a means of spell preparation, then it doesn't make any sense to be able to channel spell slots into any spell the caster has "prepared." If I prepare actual tinkered pieces of equipment that are then used to cast my spell effects, then only the items I've tinkered with would be usable. I could see channeling spell effects through the same item multiple times; but the way it's written is that the caster pretty much prepares "spells" then decides what he wants to cast at any given time, and POOF--they can suddenly come up with whatever piece of arcane tinkering they want at that exact moment. That just doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something?
And then there's that last bit that states "Such details don't limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit beyond the spell's effects." The portion about "not providing you with any benefit beyond the spell's effects" is just flat out impossibly wrong. Let me explain why this part is confusing and bothering me. Somewhere in the artificer description, or elsewhere one of the devs was talking about how the artificer spells function, I saw cure wounds used as an example: it was said that an artificer could have the spell be performed by a small mechanical spider that mends the wounds of the target. I agree, within the RAW for the class, I totally get this possibility. BUT, if any of you reading this are DMs, then you know players will find a way to use this to their advantage if they are in a pinch.
First off, a small mechanical spider is a separate object that can be independently targeted and damaged. This means that said spider could be destroyed, thereby eliminating the ability of the artificer in question to cast any further cure wounds. On the flip side, the same artificer could theoretically dismantle said mechanical spider and use the inner workings as improvised lockpicks, or use the physical components in any other way they could imagine. This is one of the biggest problems I can see with this class: it gives FAR too much artistic license to the player running the character, and that license will inevitably be made use of in way it was not intended. Sure a DM can say "No, you can't do that--too bad, so sad!" But that's not good DMing. "Because I said so" is not style I prescribe to.
Someone help me out here. I'm not trying to be jerky about this class. I actually like the concept, but the execution as I understand it is just not making sense to me. Am I misunderstanding the class? Or am I understanding it but not in agreement with it?
It would be awesome to have a dev weigh in on RAI as opposed to RAW.
They are trying to give the Artificer a unique flavor for their spellcasting. They’re clear about that being flavor only, and not granting any mechanical advantages or downsides compared to other casters.
If you do want to use that flavor, you could interpret it as creating devices, etc. when you prepare spells, and then imbuing them with magic when you cast them.
Personally, I don’t like the inventor or tool focus aspects. I play my Artillerist as a magic item crafter. I treat his spells as if they are coming from magic items that he has prepared, but otherwise he operates like a normal spellcaster.
The artificer, as a class, is weird; I'm not going to lie. Even just accepting it exists says something about the game world your table plays in. It blurs the line between magic and science in a way the wizard simply can't. Spells like dispel magic, Leomund's tiny hut, and silence all affect them. If a spell normally has verbal components then it still verbal components; which might mean the artificer is required to spout technobabble right out of Star Trek.
And that's to say nothing of how they're able to cast a menagerie of spells with just their thieves' tools; the only tools they're seemingly guaranteed to have. It's actually possible to create an artificer with none, but in order to do that, you'd have to roll for starting gold and not pick any.
Yeah, the whole "it's all just a game so don't take it too serious and try have fun instead" bit. Jokes aside, as the text you quote says, these are just suggestions on how to flavour your spellcasting if you play an artificer. If you don't think that makes sense, don't do it. It's all part of the "imagine things to have fun with your friends" part of the game. If you want to play an artificer as wizard who like to build stuff then do that. There's not tight way or wrong way to do it.
I remember the "Cure Wounds" Spider in one of the playtest versions of Artificer... I think they walked that back to just " A Salve" because they realized encouraging the idea of having a little nanomachine do the work for you is a little too easy to mess with.
That said... I do agree that artificer is a bit weird and it's hard to explain them within the context of D&D spellcasting. What exactly is a "spell slot" in the case of an artificer? It's a vague enough concept that you can kind of handwave it as just an ill-defined volume of magical energy a spellcaster can call upon, but if an artificer is casting a spell that is overtly powered by a physical object that exists within the world, how does it work? And if spells are cast using unique inventions crafted by your artificer, why are you still able to cast them as long as you have access to a set of thieve's tools?
I think it all depends on how creative you want to get with it. You're not required to give any flavor to your spellcasting... if you want to just say that your character casts spells like everyone else, they just wave around a monkey wrench instead of a magic wand, that's perfectly fine. I'm inclined to actually encourage some challenges related to artificer-specific spellcasting... I enjoy those little complications that make the world more engaging. So RAW, as an artificer, all you need is a set of tools to cast spells, but if I was playing I would still want to limit myself by saying I need access to my general equipment to pull something off, and would want to be limited to needing to grab stuff in my environment to explain how I'm casting my spell... even if it's something goofy and dumb... like jumping behind a bar and mixing seemingly random drinks to cast Tasha's Caustic Brew.
Or am I understanding it but not in agreement with it?
This right here is your issue. If a caster can cast a spell and has the components and slots to do so, the way they describe it is of little consequence. Cure Wounds, for example, is still a Range: Touch spell, so even if they want to use a mechanical spider, they have to be next to the person and place the spider on them to use it (unless they're using a familiar or Homunculus to deliver a Touch spell). The DM could easily rule that the spider is destroyed upon use, so if they want to use the spell again, they have to whip up a new one on their turn. In my case, my Warforged Armorer heals with a giant needle that pops out of his wrist that he stabs into the PC and pumps "healing fluids" into them. The healing is almost as traumatic as getting injured and it almost always generates laughs at the table. Mechanically, I cast Cure Wounds and the PC gets healed same as if a Cleric had done it with divine magic. The class's whole shtick is "tinkering on the fly." They're still limited by their proficiencies, available spell slots, and mechanics of the spells. And if you're having trouble wrapping your head around an Artifacer mixing up a healing salve in 6 seconds, just remember that Monks can run on water, just because they're Monks.
You know how a Component Pouch is assumed to have every single material component for all spells as long as they don't have a specific cost? This is sort of like that. There is a level of detail that the game mechanics don't care to go in to. D&D is not meant to be a fantasy physics simulator, it's meant to be an engine to tell cool and heroic stories. Let your players come up with interesting ways to fidget with their arbitrary amount of mechanically useless gadgetry. This is not meant to be an adversarial game where the players and the DM are trying to one up each other, you should be their biggest fan and allow them to do cool and creative stuff while also trying to legitimately challenge them in order to allow them to look cool overcoming those challenges. Players should also try to abide by the rulings of the DM and not be the type of person to try and argue for some disproportionate benefit from their arbitrary amount of mechanically useless gadgetry. At most, a creative use could give them Advantage on something, because Advantage/Disadvantage is what a DM can use for situational benefits.
Okay, so let's go with the above example for a moment: As a DM, I can't justify anyone whipping up a salve in the middle of battle, or even while resting, in a matter of six seconds (or 1 action), as would be the case with cure wounds. This just doesn't make any sense. And before someone says "It's a game; it doesn't have to make sense," I have to point out that if that argument was accurate then we wouldn't need rules to play the game. Yes it's a game, but it does need guidelines in order to give us structure and consistency, thus everyone knows what they can and can't do.
I like to think of it as an extension of a Healer's kit. Now, you can use your Action to apply an advanced first aid. These have a terrible shelf life, though, so you need to refresh them nightly (ie long rest).
If I'm essentially tinkering with tools and items to create effects as a means of spell preparation, then it doesn't make any sense to be able to channel spell slots into any spell the caster has "prepared." If I prepare actual tinkered pieces of equipment that are then used to cast my spell effects, then only the items I've tinkered with would be usable. I could see channeling spell effects through the same item multiple times; but the way it's written is that the caster pretty much prepares "spells" then decides what he wants to cast at any given time, and POOF--they can suddenly come up with whatever piece of arcane tinkering they want at that exact moment. That just doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something?
You're looking at it too hard. Spells and spell slots are an abstraction - you have limited amount of reagents (or magic batteries, or whatever) that need to be refilled daily. Or any number of other reasons that fit your class. I mean, what's a spell slot for anyone, when you get right down to it? How much magical energy a sorcerer can hold, versus how much divine energy a cleric can channel before they burn out?
Abstractions aren't the best when it comes to focusing on the tiny details, but they're a lot easier to run the game with since most people just aren't interested in looking at all the tiny details. They want to play the game.
BUT, if any of you reading this are DMs, then you know players will find a way to use this to their advantage if they are in a pinch.
I like to call these types of players "rules lawyers."
You can come up with any number of explanations for how your magitech will heal someone, but they have to follow rules. A healing gauntlet with limited charges, a spider that needs to be placed directly over a wound or it doesn't move to apply potion and thread (but immediately jumps back into your pouch via chain), a needle with limited amount of experimental healing elixir, etc. Trying to twist this into something its not is acting in bad faith, imho.
And, yeah, the items can be destroyed or taken. Same as a wizard's spell book and material components. How often does that happen again? Its super rare. We don't really talk about a wizard losing their stuff (or, hells, have their hair and clothes start on fire!) after getting hit by a fireball spell, so I think its fair to have the Artificer get the same benefit of the doubt with their tools.
And in the niche case they do lose their tools... well, everyone's going to be improvising and trying to be creative. At this point, I'd say go with it and have fun with whatever you do. Its not breaking anything in the game.
On the flip side, the same artificer could theoretically dismantle said mechanical spider and use the inner workings as improvised lockpicks, or use the physical components in any other way they could imagine.
The Artificer can swap out the items and spells they use, after all. So... working as intended? Sometimes, you just have to line up the right rules with the right actions the players are taking. In this case, its the spell preparation and swapping out Infusions known. And those have specific requirements that you can point to.
Someone help me out here. I'm not trying to be jerky about this class. I actually like the concept, but the execution as I understand it is just not making sense to me. Am I misunderstanding the class? Or am I understanding it but not in agreement with it?
I think you're just looking too hard at all the details and all the ways it can go wrong. Sit down, relax, and try it out and feel the ways it actively works well together. Most of these are problems that will iron themselves out when you gain experience with the class.
After reading through the replies, I've definitely come to the conclusion I'm not missing anything regarding the class, but rather that it simply doesn't fit within the type of D&D I run as a DM, nor the way I want to play as a player.
I understand the idea of "it's a game, just have fun," but there's a reason rules are in place. I'm far from a rules lawyer: there are times I can't recall a rule during gameplay, so my players and I will come up with a reasonable substitute in the meantime and go with that, then I'll look up the actual rule after the game is done. That's sort of what I was doing by asking you all for help understanding the artificer class mechanics. The lack of structure for their "spells" makes this highly abusable, and can completely alter the flavor of play as well (i.e., dark and gritty like Game of Thrones style, or goofy anime style like Ranma 1/2). I tend towards gritty realism. Goofy stuff still happens, but it's highly situation, not the overall tone of my game. Artificer, to me, seems goofy at best, and very easily abused at worst.
Thank you for the discussion, gang! I appreciate the help. Have a happy new year!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Shawn D. Robertson
"Deride not the differing views of others, for it is in thoughtful and considerate conversation we find our greatest friends."
After reading through the replies, I've definitely come to the conclusion I'm not missing anything regarding the class, but rather that it simply doesn't fit within the type of D&D I run as a DM, nor the way I want to play as a player.
I understand the idea of "it's a game, just have fun," but there's a reason rules are in place. I'm far from a rules lawyer: there are times I can't recall a rule during gameplay, so my players and I will come up with a reasonable substitute in the meantime and go with that, then I'll look up the actual rule after the game is done. That's sort of what I was doing by asking you all for help understanding the artificer class mechanics. The lack of structure for their "spells" makes this highly abusable, and can completely alter the flavor of play as well (i.e., dark and gritty like Game of Thrones style, or goofy anime style like Ranma 1/2). I tend towards gritty realism. Goofy stuff still happens, but it's highly situation, not the overall tone of my game. Artificer, to me, seems goofy at best, and very easily abused at worst.
Thank you for the discussion, gang! I appreciate the help. Have a happy new year!
Again, there are no rules that says that artificer can't cast their spells "normally" like any other spellcaster. And since there is literally no game mechanical difference whatsoever, it is impossible to abuse Artificer spell casting any more than, say Bard spellcasting or Cleric spellcasting.
As for changing the tone of the game, yes the artificer can do that. Doesn't have to though and you can still include artificery in a dark and gritty game. Those pyromancers in King's Landing producing wildfire? Totally artificers. Qyburn re-building the Mountain into a Steel(-clad) Defender? Artificer. There is no rule that says that artificers (or any other class) has to be played in a certain way.
The main issue I still have with Artificer casting is reconciling spells with a duration of concentration. Specifically with the Alchemist.
For example, if an alchemist uses inspiring smelling salts as their means of casting guidance why would the effect on the target end when the artificer takes damage (and they fail their concentration save)? I recognize that concentration is a mechanic mainly set around balancing and limiting spell combinations but that's the one that rubs me the wrong way mostly. Tweaking and creating small gadgets, compounds, or whatevers when preparing spells, powering them with some kind of spell slot item or an infusion of magical energy at the time of casting is also fine. But it's just counterintuitive when chemical reactions require the sustained focus of the caster to continue happening while requiring nothing else.
Further, potion mechanics kind of reinforce that this is a strange scenario since most potions don't require concentration either, and the options for Experimental elixir also do not require concentration.
I feel like I have to jump through some extra hoops to come up with a satisfying explanation. I know I don't technically need to, but I definitely feel better coming up with something that makes sense within the context of the world than to just skip past it as a necessary gaming abstraction.
The main issue I still have with Artificer casting is reconciling spells with a duration of concentration. Specifically with the Alchemist.
For example, if an alchemist uses inspiring smelling salts as their means of casting guidance why would the effect on the target end when the artificer takes damage (and they fail their concentration save)? I recognize that concentration is a mechanic mainly set around balancing and limiting spell combinations but that's the one that rubs me the wrong way mostly. Tweaking and creating small gadgets, compounds, or whatevers when preparing spells, powering them with some kind of spell slot item or an infusion of magical energy at the time of casting is also fine. But it's just counterintuitive when chemical reactions require the sustained focus of the caster to continue happening while requiring nothing else.
Further, potion mechanics kind of reinforce that this is a strange scenario since most potions don't require concentration either, and the options for Experimental elixir also do not require concentration.
I feel like I have to jump through some extra hoops to come up with a satisfying explanation. I know I don't technically need to, but I definitely feel better coming up with something that makes sense within the context of the world than to just skip past it as a necessary gaming abstraction.
The obvious solution to this is that concentration spells aren't cast with "fire and forget" components. To take an example, fairy fire could easily be just glitter and adhesive aimed at the target using a small set of bellows (or whatever) that you need to keep pumping every so often. Not often enough to prevent you from say, shoot a crossbow but often enough to warrant the concentration trait. Or you can just mix and match what spells you want to be cast "traditionally" and which are cast "mechanically". :)
The main issue I still have with Artificer casting is reconciling spells with a duration of concentration. Specifically with the Alchemist.
For example, if an alchemist uses inspiring smelling salts as their means of casting guidance why would the effect on the target end when the artificer takes damage (and they fail their concentration save)? I recognize that concentration is a mechanic mainly set around balancing and limiting spell combinations but that's the one that rubs me the wrong way mostly. Tweaking and creating small gadgets, compounds, or whatevers when preparing spells, powering them with some kind of spell slot item or an infusion of magical energy at the time of casting is also fine. But it's just counterintuitive when chemical reactions require the sustained focus of the caster to continue happening while requiring nothing else.
Further, potion mechanics kind of reinforce that this is a strange scenario since most potions don't require concentration either, and the options for Experimental elixir also do not require concentration.
I feel like I have to jump through some extra hoops to come up with a satisfying explanation. I know I don't technically need to, but I definitely feel better coming up with something that makes sense within the context of the world than to just skip past it as a necessary gaming abstraction.
The obvious solution to this is that concentration spells aren't cast with "fire and forget" components. To take an example, fairy fire could easily be just glitter and adhesive aimed at the target using a small set of bellows (or whatever) that you need to keep pumping every so often. Not often enough to prevent you from say, shoot a crossbow but often enough to warrant the concentration trait. Or you can just mix and match what spells you want to be cast "traditionally" and which are cast "mechanically". :)
I mean, yeah. That's a prime example of some extra hoops right there.
Particularly if those extra hoops require the use of your hands or something else which would under other circumstances would be considered an action, etc. Or would (in theory not in mechanics) require you to still be in range of those particular folks you're in the process of maintaining glitterification upon.
Something I came up with once when I was looking through the artificer spell list somewhat frustrated at the whole concentration thing was that casting Faerie Fire was opening a jar filled with short lived psychic fireflies tuned to your mind and that only respond to a single command "land" and they land on people within range. Lose concentration on that command and they fly away.
I'm not saying it's an insurmountable obstacle it's just an extra step in the road and kind of annoying sometimes.
The main issue I still have with Artificer casting is reconciling spells with a duration of concentration. Specifically with the Alchemist.
For example, if an alchemist uses inspiring smelling salts as their means of casting guidance why would the effect on the target end when the artificer takes damage (and they fail their concentration save)? I recognize that concentration is a mechanic mainly set around balancing and limiting spell combinations but that's the one that rubs me the wrong way mostly. Tweaking and creating small gadgets, compounds, or whatevers when preparing spells, powering them with some kind of spell slot item or an infusion of magical energy at the time of casting is also fine. But it's just counterintuitive when chemical reactions require the sustained focus of the caster to continue happening while requiring nothing else.
Further, potion mechanics kind of reinforce that this is a strange scenario since most potions don't require concentration either, and the options for Experimental elixir also do not require concentration.
I feel like I have to jump through some extra hoops to come up with a satisfying explanation. I know I don't technically need to, but I definitely feel better coming up with something that makes sense within the context of the world than to just skip past it as a necessary gaming abstraction.
The obvious solution to this is that concentration spells aren't cast with "fire and forget" components. To take an example, fairy fire could easily be just glitter and adhesive aimed at the target using a small set of bellows (or whatever) that you need to keep pumping every so often. Not often enough to prevent you from say, shoot a crossbow but often enough to warrant the concentration trait. Or you can just mix and match what spells you want to be cast "traditionally" and which are cast "mechanically". :)
I'm not saying it's an insurmountable obstacle it's just an extra step in the road and kind of annoying sometimes.
So just ignore it, then? Just because it "requires your hands" doesn't mean that you are incapable of doing it. Multitasking in combat is, believe it or not, quite doable.
The simplest answer is that you should just model spellcasting for an artificer in a way that you and your arti player see fit. There's no fixed rules on it, just like there aren't any for other classes. The book gives examples on how to style it, not absolute rules.
Bards can have a bit of a similar thing with instruments as their spellfocus. I could imagine a high lvl spell needing more than me touching my lute and saying alakazam but thats what the game needs you to do.
How you style spells is not necessarily the same as how they mechanically work, even for a gritty realism game.
So just ignore it, then? Just because it "requires your hands" doesn't mean that you are incapable of doing it. Multitasking in combat is, believe it or not, quite doable.
I appreciate that you're trying to help and offer solutions and I'm grateful. But I'm mostly just complaining about a thing I find annoying. Note. Just annoying. Not infuriating, not a major deal breaker of any kind. Artificers are still my favorite class. I probably shouldn't have bothered posting about it at all.
I know what's needed to do and that it is entirely dependent on player/DM collaboration etc. At the moment that DM is a hypothetical question mark which makes further planning not really doable which leaves a whole lot of questions.
The easiest way to fluff artificer spellcasting is to remember that it's still spellcasting.
Artificers use created objects to guide and refine their spells, but the artificer must still actively invoke the spell and expend their own magical power (however one decides 'spell slots' work in their game). Concentration works the same way it does for other spells - the artificer has to maintain a certain degree of focus on ensuring their item can continually function. As of Tasha's Cauldron, all artificer spells have an 'M' requirement whether they did so before or not and the artificer spellcasting feature explicitly requires a spellcasting focus to function - either a tool you're proficient in (usually held to be an object created with that tool, rather than waving a wrench-wand), or an object you've modified as an artificer infusion. The latter allows for both cool flavor and tighter control of spellcasting, and may be preferable for some DMs.
That said? Honestly, the thought of an artificer player wanting to break down one of their 'prepared spell devices' to use its components in a nonstandard way sounds like a really cool gameplay decision to me. As follows:
Artificer player: "Okay, I'm gonna dismantle the MechaSpinner 4.0 to use its parts to jimmy open this lock, since that stupid boglin jacked my thieves' tools." DM Rei: "All right. Remove Cure Wounds from your list of prepared spells for the day and roll a Dexterity check with disadvantage on the lock, since you're using improvised, delicate parts not meant for this task." Artificer player: "Aww..." DM Rei: "Hey, you get to make the roll in the first place. Nobody else would have. Your Tool Expertise still applies. Clever thinking, give it a shot and see what happens."
If an artificer wants to dismantle one of their prepared spells because they desperately need components? Let them. They don't get that spell back and have to go without it for the rest of the day, nor do they get to prepare a different one in its place. That's a really cool way to use resources unconventionally to try and squirm out of tight problems, and a good example of the proper artificer mindset at work. After all, anybody else could do the same thing just by carrying twenty pounds of "assorted metal bits, gears, and small components" in a satchel somewhere. Most folks simply don't do that because they don't think like a tinkerer.
So just ignore it, then? Just because it "requires your hands" doesn't mean that you are incapable of doing it. Multitasking in combat is, believe it or not, quite doable.
I appreciate that you're trying to help and offer solutions and I'm grateful. But I'm mostly just complaining about a thing I find annoying. Note. Just annoying. Not infuriating, not a major deal breaker of any kind. Artificers are still my favorite class. I probably shouldn't have bothered posting about it at all.
I know what's needed to do and that it is entirely dependent on player/DM collaboration etc. At the moment that DM is a hypothetical question mark which makes further planning not really doable which leaves a whole lot of questions.
Just to provide some perspective, keep in mind that other people absolutely eat this stuff up. I'm seeing psychic fireflies and glitter bellows in this thread and I'm loving it. The mechanical restrictions and the tone of the setting force you to get creative which produces imagery you never would have come up with otherwise.
Okay, I am not new to D&D--I've been playing for 34 years and played every edition--and I've never been confused by a class until now. Note: I understand the artificer was present in either 3rd or 4th edition as well, but I only ran 3rd for about three years and didn't buy many supplements, and I only played 4th once and hated the edition. Anyway, my first exposure to the artificer was via Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. The core concept behind this class just confuses me. So let me explain what I'm confused about and maybe the community can help me out here. I keep thinking there must be something I'm not seeing or understanding correctly.
The core mechanic surrounding this class's spellcasting is what confuses me. So the RAW (rules as written) are.
Okay, so let's go with the above example for a moment: As a DM, I can't justify anyone whipping up a salve in the middle of battle, or even while resting, in a matter of six seconds (or 1 action), as would be the case with cure wounds. This just doesn't make any sense. And before someone says "It's a game; it doesn't have to make sense," I have to point out that if that argument was accurate then we wouldn't need rules to play the game. Yes it's a game, but it does need guidelines in order to give us structure and consistency, thus everyone knows what they can and can't do.
And then we have this little piece from the class description:
If I'm essentially tinkering with tools and items to create effects as a means of spell preparation, then it doesn't make any sense to be able to channel spell slots into any spell the caster has "prepared." If I prepare actual tinkered pieces of equipment that are then used to cast my spell effects, then only the items I've tinkered with would be usable. I could see channeling spell effects through the same item multiple times; but the way it's written is that the caster pretty much prepares "spells" then decides what he wants to cast at any given time, and POOF--they can suddenly come up with whatever piece of arcane tinkering they want at that exact moment. That just doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something?
And then there's that last bit that states "Such details don't limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit beyond the spell's effects." The portion about "not providing you with any benefit beyond the spell's effects" is just flat out impossibly wrong. Let me explain why this part is confusing and bothering me. Somewhere in the artificer description, or elsewhere one of the devs was talking about how the artificer spells function, I saw cure wounds used as an example: it was said that an artificer could have the spell be performed by a small mechanical spider that mends the wounds of the target. I agree, within the RAW for the class, I totally get this possibility. BUT, if any of you reading this are DMs, then you know players will find a way to use this to their advantage if they are in a pinch.
First off, a small mechanical spider is a separate object that can be independently targeted and damaged. This means that said spider could be destroyed, thereby eliminating the ability of the artificer in question to cast any further cure wounds. On the flip side, the same artificer could theoretically dismantle said mechanical spider and use the inner workings as improvised lockpicks, or use the physical components in any other way they could imagine. This is one of the biggest problems I can see with this class: it gives FAR too much artistic license to the player running the character, and that license will inevitably be made use of in way it was not intended. Sure a DM can say "No, you can't do that--too bad, so sad!" But that's not good DMing. "Because I said so" is not style I prescribe to.
Someone help me out here. I'm not trying to be jerky about this class. I actually like the concept, but the execution as I understand it is just not making sense to me. Am I misunderstanding the class? Or am I understanding it but not in agreement with it?
It would be awesome to have a dev weigh in on RAI as opposed to RAW.
Thoughts?
Shawn D. Robertson
"Deride not the differing views of others, for it is in thoughtful and considerate conversation we find our greatest friends."
~Me~
They are trying to give the Artificer a unique flavor for their spellcasting. They’re clear about that being flavor only, and not granting any mechanical advantages or downsides compared to other casters.
If you do want to use that flavor, you could interpret it as creating devices, etc. when you prepare spells, and then imbuing them with magic when you cast them.
Personally, I don’t like the inventor or tool focus aspects. I play my Artillerist as a magic item crafter. I treat his spells as if they are coming from magic items that he has prepared, but otherwise he operates like a normal spellcaster.
The artificer, as a class, is weird; I'm not going to lie. Even just accepting it exists says something about the game world your table plays in. It blurs the line between magic and science in a way the wizard simply can't. Spells like dispel magic, Leomund's tiny hut, and silence all affect them. If a spell normally has verbal components then it still verbal components; which might mean the artificer is required to spout technobabble right out of Star Trek.
And that's to say nothing of how they're able to cast a menagerie of spells with just their thieves' tools; the only tools they're seemingly guaranteed to have. It's actually possible to create an artificer with none, but in order to do that, you'd have to roll for starting gold and not pick any.
Yeah, the whole "it's all just a game so don't take it too serious and try have fun instead" bit. Jokes aside, as the text you quote says, these are just suggestions on how to flavour your spellcasting if you play an artificer. If you don't think that makes sense, don't do it. It's all part of the "imagine things to have fun with your friends" part of the game. If you want to play an artificer as wizard who like to build stuff then do that. There's not tight way or wrong way to do it.
I remember the "Cure Wounds" Spider in one of the playtest versions of Artificer... I think they walked that back to just " A Salve" because they realized encouraging the idea of having a little nanomachine do the work for you is a little too easy to mess with.
That said... I do agree that artificer is a bit weird and it's hard to explain them within the context of D&D spellcasting. What exactly is a "spell slot" in the case of an artificer? It's a vague enough concept that you can kind of handwave it as just an ill-defined volume of magical energy a spellcaster can call upon, but if an artificer is casting a spell that is overtly powered by a physical object that exists within the world, how does it work? And if spells are cast using unique inventions crafted by your artificer, why are you still able to cast them as long as you have access to a set of thieve's tools?
I think it all depends on how creative you want to get with it. You're not required to give any flavor to your spellcasting... if you want to just say that your character casts spells like everyone else, they just wave around a monkey wrench instead of a magic wand, that's perfectly fine. I'm inclined to actually encourage some challenges related to artificer-specific spellcasting... I enjoy those little complications that make the world more engaging. So RAW, as an artificer, all you need is a set of tools to cast spells, but if I was playing I would still want to limit myself by saying I need access to my general equipment to pull something off, and would want to be limited to needing to grab stuff in my environment to explain how I'm casting my spell... even if it's something goofy and dumb... like jumping behind a bar and mixing seemingly random drinks to cast Tasha's Caustic Brew.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
This right here is your issue. If a caster can cast a spell and has the components and slots to do so, the way they describe it is of little consequence. Cure Wounds, for example, is still a Range: Touch spell, so even if they want to use a mechanical spider, they have to be next to the person and place the spider on them to use it (unless they're using a familiar or Homunculus to deliver a Touch spell). The DM could easily rule that the spider is destroyed upon use, so if they want to use the spell again, they have to whip up a new one on their turn. In my case, my Warforged Armorer heals with a giant needle that pops out of his wrist that he stabs into the PC and pumps "healing fluids" into them. The healing is almost as traumatic as getting injured and it almost always generates laughs at the table. Mechanically, I cast Cure Wounds and the PC gets healed same as if a Cleric had done it with divine magic. The class's whole shtick is "tinkering on the fly." They're still limited by their proficiencies, available spell slots, and mechanics of the spells. And if you're having trouble wrapping your head around an Artifacer mixing up a healing salve in 6 seconds, just remember that Monks can run on water, just because they're Monks.
You know how a Component Pouch is assumed to have every single material component for all spells as long as they don't have a specific cost? This is sort of like that. There is a level of detail that the game mechanics don't care to go in to. D&D is not meant to be a fantasy physics simulator, it's meant to be an engine to tell cool and heroic stories. Let your players come up with interesting ways to fidget with their arbitrary amount of mechanically useless gadgetry. This is not meant to be an adversarial game where the players and the DM are trying to one up each other, you should be their biggest fan and allow them to do cool and creative stuff while also trying to legitimately challenge them in order to allow them to look cool overcoming those challenges. Players should also try to abide by the rulings of the DM and not be the type of person to try and argue for some disproportionate benefit from their arbitrary amount of mechanically useless gadgetry. At most, a creative use could give them Advantage on something, because Advantage/Disadvantage is what a DM can use for situational benefits.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I like to think of it as an extension of a Healer's kit. Now, you can use your Action to apply an advanced first aid. These have a terrible shelf life, though, so you need to refresh them nightly (ie long rest).
You're looking at it too hard. Spells and spell slots are an abstraction - you have limited amount of reagents (or magic batteries, or whatever) that need to be refilled daily. Or any number of other reasons that fit your class. I mean, what's a spell slot for anyone, when you get right down to it? How much magical energy a sorcerer can hold, versus how much divine energy a cleric can channel before they burn out?
Abstractions aren't the best when it comes to focusing on the tiny details, but they're a lot easier to run the game with since most people just aren't interested in looking at all the tiny details. They want to play the game.
I like to call these types of players "rules lawyers."
You can come up with any number of explanations for how your magitech will heal someone, but they have to follow rules. A healing gauntlet with limited charges, a spider that needs to be placed directly over a wound or it doesn't move to apply potion and thread (but immediately jumps back into your pouch via chain), a needle with limited amount of experimental healing elixir, etc. Trying to twist this into something its not is acting in bad faith, imho.
And, yeah, the items can be destroyed or taken. Same as a wizard's spell book and material components. How often does that happen again? Its super rare. We don't really talk about a wizard losing their stuff (or, hells, have their hair and clothes start on fire!) after getting hit by a fireball spell, so I think its fair to have the Artificer get the same benefit of the doubt with their tools.
And in the niche case they do lose their tools... well, everyone's going to be improvising and trying to be creative. At this point, I'd say go with it and have fun with whatever you do. Its not breaking anything in the game.
The Artificer can swap out the items and spells they use, after all. So... working as intended? Sometimes, you just have to line up the right rules with the right actions the players are taking. In this case, its the spell preparation and swapping out Infusions known. And those have specific requirements that you can point to.
I think you're just looking too hard at all the details and all the ways it can go wrong. Sit down, relax, and try it out and feel the ways it actively works well together. Most of these are problems that will iron themselves out when you gain experience with the class.
I appreciate all the feedback, peeps!
After reading through the replies, I've definitely come to the conclusion I'm not missing anything regarding the class, but rather that it simply doesn't fit within the type of D&D I run as a DM, nor the way I want to play as a player.
I understand the idea of "it's a game, just have fun," but there's a reason rules are in place. I'm far from a rules lawyer: there are times I can't recall a rule during gameplay, so my players and I will come up with a reasonable substitute in the meantime and go with that, then I'll look up the actual rule after the game is done. That's sort of what I was doing by asking you all for help understanding the artificer class mechanics. The lack of structure for their "spells" makes this highly abusable, and can completely alter the flavor of play as well (i.e., dark and gritty like Game of Thrones style, or goofy anime style like Ranma 1/2). I tend towards gritty realism. Goofy stuff still happens, but it's highly situation, not the overall tone of my game. Artificer, to me, seems goofy at best, and very easily abused at worst.
Thank you for the discussion, gang! I appreciate the help. Have a happy new year!
Shawn D. Robertson
"Deride not the differing views of others, for it is in thoughtful and considerate conversation we find our greatest friends."
~Me~
Ahh, so you like to play the grittier version of D&D than the default. That's cool, too!
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Again, there are no rules that says that artificer can't cast their spells "normally" like any other spellcaster. And since there is literally no game mechanical difference whatsoever, it is impossible to abuse Artificer spell casting any more than, say Bard spellcasting or Cleric spellcasting.
As for changing the tone of the game, yes the artificer can do that. Doesn't have to though and you can still include artificery in a dark and gritty game. Those pyromancers in King's Landing producing wildfire? Totally artificers. Qyburn re-building the Mountain into a Steel(-clad) Defender? Artificer. There is no rule that says that artificers (or any other class) has to be played in a certain way.
The main issue I still have with Artificer casting is reconciling spells with a duration of concentration. Specifically with the Alchemist.
For example, if an alchemist uses inspiring smelling salts as their means of casting guidance why would the effect on the target end when the artificer takes damage (and they fail their concentration save)? I recognize that concentration is a mechanic mainly set around balancing and limiting spell combinations but that's the one that rubs me the wrong way mostly. Tweaking and creating small gadgets, compounds, or whatevers when preparing spells, powering them with some kind of spell slot item or an infusion of magical energy at the time of casting is also fine. But it's just counterintuitive when chemical reactions require the sustained focus of the caster to continue happening while requiring nothing else.
Further, potion mechanics kind of reinforce that this is a strange scenario since most potions don't require concentration either, and the options for Experimental elixir also do not require concentration.
I feel like I have to jump through some extra hoops to come up with a satisfying explanation. I know I don't technically need to, but I definitely feel better coming up with something that makes sense within the context of the world than to just skip past it as a necessary gaming abstraction.
The obvious solution to this is that concentration spells aren't cast with "fire and forget" components. To take an example, fairy fire could easily be just glitter and adhesive aimed at the target using a small set of bellows (or whatever) that you need to keep pumping every so often. Not often enough to prevent you from say, shoot a crossbow but often enough to warrant the concentration trait. Or you can just mix and match what spells you want to be cast "traditionally" and which are cast "mechanically". :)
Don't forget that while an Artificer's magic is accessed/channeled through technology, it is still magic and they know it to be so.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I mean, yeah. That's a prime example of some extra hoops right there.
Particularly if those extra hoops require the use of your hands or something else which would under other circumstances would be considered an action, etc. Or would (in theory not in mechanics) require you to still be in range of those particular folks you're in the process of maintaining glitterification upon.
Something I came up with once when I was looking through the artificer spell list somewhat frustrated at the whole concentration thing was that casting Faerie Fire was opening a jar filled with short lived psychic fireflies tuned to your mind and that only respond to a single command "land" and they land on people within range. Lose concentration on that command and they fly away.
I'm not saying it's an insurmountable obstacle it's just an extra step in the road and kind of annoying sometimes.
So just ignore it, then? Just because it "requires your hands" doesn't mean that you are incapable of doing it. Multitasking in combat is, believe it or not, quite doable.
The simplest answer is that you should just model spellcasting for an artificer in a way that you and your arti player see fit. There's no fixed rules on it, just like there aren't any for other classes. The book gives examples on how to style it, not absolute rules.
Bards can have a bit of a similar thing with instruments as their spellfocus. I could imagine a high lvl spell needing more than me touching my lute and saying alakazam but thats what the game needs you to do.
How you style spells is not necessarily the same as how they mechanically work, even for a gritty realism game.
I appreciate that you're trying to help and offer solutions and I'm grateful. But I'm mostly just complaining about a thing I find annoying. Note. Just annoying. Not infuriating, not a major deal breaker of any kind. Artificers are still my favorite class. I probably shouldn't have bothered posting about it at all.
I know what's needed to do and that it is entirely dependent on player/DM collaboration etc. At the moment that DM is a hypothetical question mark which makes further planning not really doable which leaves a whole lot of questions.
The easiest way to fluff artificer spellcasting is to remember that it's still spellcasting.
Artificers use created objects to guide and refine their spells, but the artificer must still actively invoke the spell and expend their own magical power (however one decides 'spell slots' work in their game). Concentration works the same way it does for other spells - the artificer has to maintain a certain degree of focus on ensuring their item can continually function. As of Tasha's Cauldron, all artificer spells have an 'M' requirement whether they did so before or not and the artificer spellcasting feature explicitly requires a spellcasting focus to function - either a tool you're proficient in (usually held to be an object created with that tool, rather than waving a wrench-wand), or an object you've modified as an artificer infusion. The latter allows for both cool flavor and tighter control of spellcasting, and may be preferable for some DMs.
That said? Honestly, the thought of an artificer player wanting to break down one of their 'prepared spell devices' to use its components in a nonstandard way sounds like a really cool gameplay decision to me. As follows:
Artificer player: "Okay, I'm gonna dismantle the MechaSpinner 4.0 to use its parts to jimmy open this lock, since that stupid boglin jacked my thieves' tools."
DM Rei: "All right. Remove Cure Wounds from your list of prepared spells for the day and roll a Dexterity check with disadvantage on the lock, since you're using improvised, delicate parts not meant for this task."
Artificer player: "Aww..."
DM Rei: "Hey, you get to make the roll in the first place. Nobody else would have. Your Tool Expertise still applies. Clever thinking, give it a shot and see what happens."
If an artificer wants to dismantle one of their prepared spells because they desperately need components? Let them. They don't get that spell back and have to go without it for the rest of the day, nor do they get to prepare a different one in its place. That's a really cool way to use resources unconventionally to try and squirm out of tight problems, and a good example of the proper artificer mindset at work. After all, anybody else could do the same thing just by carrying twenty pounds of "assorted metal bits, gears, and small components" in a satchel somewhere. Most folks simply don't do that because they don't think like a tinkerer.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just to provide some perspective, keep in mind that other people absolutely eat this stuff up. I'm seeing psychic fireflies and glitter bellows in this thread and I'm loving it. The mechanical restrictions and the tone of the setting force you to get creative which produces imagery you never would have come up with otherwise.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm